Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T01:21:58.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

(Mis)perception of party congruence and satisfaction with democracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2024

Royce Carroll
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
Yen-Chieh Liao*
Affiliation:
School of Politics and International Relations, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Li Tang
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Middlesex University, London, UK
*
Corresponding author: Yen-Chieh Liao; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how voters’ perceptions of ideological incongruence with political parties affect their satisfaction with democracy. Using panel data from the British Election Study, we first demonstrate that greater misperception of party positions correlates with higher perceived ideological distance from one's preferred party. We then show that this increased perceived incongruence is associated with lower satisfaction with democracy when controlling for objective measures of incongruence. These findings are consistent across several alternative measures and specifications, and similar results are found in cross-sectional data from Europe. The results suggest that subjective perceptions of representation, potentially distorted by misperceptions, play a role in shaping citizens’ attitudes toward the political system. While the limitations of the study warrant caution in interpretation, the study contributes to the literature by highlighting the importance of perceived ideological congruence for understanding the link between representation and satisfaction with democracy.

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of EPS Academic Ltd

1. Introduction

Political parties play a crucial role in representing the preferences of voters (Downs, Reference Downs1957; Stokes, Reference Stokes1963). Consequently, many studies have concentrated on the congruence between the ideology of parties and their supporters (Powell, Reference Powell2010; Arnold et al., Reference Arnold, Sapir and de Vries2012; Arnold and Franklin, Reference Arnold and Franklin2012; Mattila and Raunio, Reference Mattila and Raunio2012; Butler and Dynes, Reference Butler and Dynes2016; Carroll and Kubo, Reference Carroll and Kubo2018; Werner, Reference Werner2019; Costello et al., Reference Costello, Toshkov, Bos and Krouwel2020; Best, Reference Best2023; Carroll and Meireles, Reference Carroll and Meireles2024), including the implications for political representation and voters’ attitudes toward the political system (Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020; Noordzij et al., Reference Noordzij, De Koster and Van Der Waal2021; Wardt and Otjes, Reference Wardt and Otjes2022; Marchal and Watson, Reference Marchal and Watson2022a). However, perceptions of party ideological positions are often flawed (Dahlberg, Reference Dahlberg2013; Grand and Tiemann, Reference Grand and Tiemann2013; Calvo et al., Reference Calvo, Chang and Hellwig2014; Levendusky and Malhotra, Reference Levendusky and Malhotra2016; Carroll and Kubo, Reference Carroll and Kubo2017; Ahler and Sood, Reference Ahler and Sood2018; Meyer and Wagner, Reference Meyer and Wagner2020; Nasr, Reference Nasr2021), and this may influence perceived ideological gaps between parties and their voters. This study examines the relationship between these potentially inaccurate perceptions of party-supporter ideological congruence and citizens’ satisfaction with democracy.

A substantial body of research has investigated the determinants of citizens’ satisfaction with democracy, encompassing a wide range of factors (e.g., Anderson and Guillory Reference Anderson and Guillory1997; Rohrschneider Reference Rohrschneider2005; Kim Reference Kim2009; Hobolt Reference Hobolt2012; Reher Reference Reher2015; Mayne and Hakhverdian Reference Mayne and Hakhverdian2017; Dassonneville and McAllister Reference Dassonneville and McAllister2020; Loveless and Binelli Reference Loveless and Binelli2020; Hobolt et al. Reference Hobolt, Hoerner and Rodon2021; Valgarðsson and Devine Reference Valgarðsson and Devine2022).Footnote 1 A growing set of studies has focused on the role of voter–party alignment (Mayne and Hakhverdian, Reference Mayne and Hakhverdian2017; Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2018, Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020; Goldberg et al., Reference Goldberg, van Elsas and de Vreese2020; Van Egmond et al., Reference Van Egmond, Johns and Brandenburg2020; Ibenskas and Polk, Reference Ibenskas and Polk2022; Wardt and Otjes, Reference Wardt and Otjes2022; Marchal and Watson, Reference Marchal and Watson2022b), including how the degree of ideological congruence between voters’ preferences and the positions of parties can influence attitudes toward the political system. While congruence can be objectively measured (Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2018, Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020), it is also influenced by voters’ subjective perceptions (Van Egmond et al., Reference Van Egmond, Johns and Brandenburg2020; Best and Seyis, Reference Best and Seyis2021; Wardt and Otjes, Reference Wardt and Otjes2022). If voters inaccurately perceive parties’ stances, such misperceptions could distort assessments of the alignment between party positions and their own preferences, potentially affecting satisfaction with democracy.

This study examines how voters’ subjective perception of party representation relates to their attitudes toward democracy. When voters perceive incongruence between their own positions and those of the parties they support, dissatisfaction with democracy may increase, notwithstanding the actual degree of representation. Conversely, the perception that a preferred party is more ideologically aligned may correspond to greater satisfaction with democracy, even when the objective degree of congruence is weak. Thus, misperceptions of party stances could distort assessments of party-supporter incongruence, impacting perceived representation and, in turn, satisfaction with democracy. That is, subjective evaluations of positions may impact democratic attitudes, where inaccurate beliefs can potentially distort these evaluations.

Our main analysis uses panel data from the British Election Study (BES) to examine how perceived party congruence relates to satisfaction with democracy. The panel structure permits examining within-respondent relationships over time. The UK party system provides a relevant context for this study, as prior research has highlighted perceived gaps between voters’ ideological positions and those of British parties (Brandenburg and Johns, Reference Brandenburg and Johns2014). Moreover, the majoritarian institutional setting limits voters’ options for supported parties, with fewer viable party alternatives (Hobolt et al., Reference Hobolt, Hoerner and Rodon2021). Leveraging this case, we examine whether misperceptions correspond to greater perceived incongruence between voters and their preferred parties and whether such perceived incongruence is negatively associated with satisfaction with democracy, accounting for objective congruence.

We first demonstrate that perceived incongruence—the subjective ideological gap between voters and their preferred party—is associated with greater misperception of party positions. Our main analysis then investigates how perceived incongruence relates to voters’ satisfaction with democracy. The analysis shows that greater perceived incongruence between parties and voters corresponds to lower satisfaction with democracy, holding constant the degree of actual party-supporter incongruence measured by expert assessments of party placements. These findings are shown to be robust across multiple model specifications and alternative ways of measuring party and respondent positions. We also conduct a supplementary cross-sectional analysis, utilizing recent data from European countries from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), finding similar results.

Taken together, the results underscore the importance of subjective evaluations, potentially shaped by misperceptions, in how citizens assess democratic performance. While limitations of the study do not allow conclusions about causality, the findings across analyses suggest that subjective perceptions of representation consistently correlate with democratic attitudes. The paper concludes with a discussion of the limitations of these findings and future directions for research, including the need to identify the causal relationships between subjective perceptions, objective congruence, and attitudes toward democracy.

2. Party incongruence, satisfaction with democracy, and the effects of misperception

A large literature has investigated the influence of various factors on citizens’ satisfaction with the functioning of democracy (Anderson and Guillory, Reference Anderson and Guillory1997; Rohrschneider, Reference Rohrschneider2005; Hobolt, Reference Hobolt2012; Leiter and Clark, Reference Leiter and Clark2015; Mayne and Hakhverdian, Reference Mayne and Hakhverdian2017; Dassonneville and McAllister, Reference Dassonneville and McAllister2020; Loveless and Binelli, Reference Loveless and Binelli2020; Ridge, Reference Ridge2022). Factors contributing to lower satisfaction include disproportionality and government fractionalization (Christmann and Torcal, Reference Christmann and Torcal2018), voting for losing parties (Curini et al., Reference Curini, Jou and Memoli2012; Singh et al., Reference Singh, Karakoç and Blais2012; Blais et al., Reference Blais, Morin-Chassé and Singh2017; Nemčok, Reference Nemčok2020), and the ideological representativeness of government policies or the overall party system (Kim, Reference Kim2009; Ezrow and Xezonakis, Reference Ezrow and Xezonakis2011; Dahlberg and Holmberg, Reference Dahlberg and Holmberg2014; Dahlberg et al., Reference Dahlberg, Linde and Holmberg2015; Stecker and Tausendpfund, Reference Stecker and Tausendpfund2016; Blais et al., Reference Blais, Morin-Chassé and Singh2017; Mayne and Hakhverdian, Reference Mayne and Hakhverdian2017; Ferland, Reference Ferland2021).

While much of the research in this area is concerned with broader government-citizen congruence (e.g., Powell and Bingham, Reference Powell and Bingham2000; Golder and Stramski, Reference Golder and Stramski2010; Soroka and Wlezien, Reference Soroka and Wlezien2010), a growing body of work examines the consequences of the relationship between individual voters and specific parties, including those they choose to support (Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2018, Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020; Van Egmond et al., Reference Van Egmond, Johns and Brandenburg2020; Goldberg et al., Reference Goldberg, van Elsas and de Vreese2020; Hobolt et al., Reference Hobolt, Hoerner and Rodon2021; Marchal and Watson, Reference Marchal and Watson2022b; Wardt and Otjes, Reference Wardt and Otjes2022). The degree of alignment between the ideological positions of political parties and their supporters is central to the effectiveness of party representation (Mattila and Raunio, Reference Mattila and Raunio2012; Boonen et al., Reference Boonen, Pedersen and Hooghe2017; Dalton, Reference Dalton2018; Carroll and Kubo, Reference Carroll and Kubo2018; Werner, Reference Werner2019; Costello et al., Reference Costello, Toshkov, Bos and Krouwel2020; Costello, Reference Costello2021; Wardt and Otjes, Reference Wardt and Otjes2022). Some consequences of incongruence between parties and voters found in this literature have included decreasing support (Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2018; Marchal and Watson, Reference Marchal and Watson2022b), decreasing antipathy toward other parties (Marchal and Watson, Reference Marchal and Watson2022b), and driving voters to support emerging parties (Wardt and Otjes, Reference Wardt and Otjes2022).

Bakker et al. (Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020) specifically explore the relationship between the representation of voters by parties and citizens’ satisfaction, revealing that party incongruence on issues increases citizens’ dissatisfaction with democracy, leading to support for anti-establishment parties. In closely related work, Van Egmond et al. (Reference Van Egmond, Johns and Brandenburg2020) find a correlation between perceived congruence with the closest party and satisfaction with democracy. Hobolt et al. (Reference Hobolt, Hoerner and Rodon2021) also corroborate the importance of party congruence in influencing such attitudes, conditional on party influence.

Party congruence with supporters can be conceptualized through both objective party positions and through supporters’ subjective perceptions of those positions (Louwerse and Andeweg, Reference Louwerse and Andeweg2020). Some work has defined incongruence based on an objective evaluation of the distance between the parties’ and voters’ views, as gauged by expert surveys (McEvoy, Reference McEvoy2012; Polk et al., Reference Polk, Rovny, Bakker, Edwards, Hooghe, Jolly, Koedam, Kostelka, Marks, Schumacher, Steenbergen and Vachudova2017; Bakker et al., Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020; Marchal and Watson, Reference Marchal and Watson2022a). Perceived congruence, meanwhile, refers to the subjective distance between the positions of parties and supporters, typically measured by surveys of respondent and party left–right placements (Adams et al., Reference Adams, Clark, Ezrow and Glasgow2004; Mattila and Raunio, Reference Mattila and Raunio2006; Ezrow and Xezonakis, Reference Ezrow and Xezonakis2011; Ezrow et al., Reference Ezrow, De Vries, Steenbergen and Edwards2011; Mattila and Raunio, Reference Mattila and Raunio2012; Schumacher et al., Reference Schumacher, De Vries and Vis2013; McAllister et al., Reference McAllister, Sheppard and Bean2015; Adams et al., Reference Adams, Ezrow and Wlezien2016; Boonen et al., Reference Boonen, Pedersen and Hooghe2017; Stiers, Reference Stiers2022). Because voters may have inaccurate or biased perceptions of party positions, perceived congruence can differ from actual congruence.

Citizens’ ability to perceive the ideological positions of political parties accurately is known to be influenced by a wide range of factors, such as education levels and political knowledge or a lack of clarity in party labels (e.g., Palfrey and Poole, Reference Palfrey and Poole1987; Luskin, Reference Luskin1990; Delli Carpini and Keeter, Reference Delli Carpini and Keeter1996; Bartels, Reference Bartels1996; Meirick, Reference Meirick2013; Dahlberg, Reference Dahlberg2013; Banducci et al., Reference Banducci, Giebler and Kritzinger2015; Busch, Reference Busch2016; Carroll and Kubo, Reference Carroll and Kubo2017; Nasr, Reference Nasr2020). In addition to such information gaps, other literature has found that partisan identities can shape information processing or result in motivated reasoning influencing voters’ understanding of policy issues (e.g., Bartels, Reference Bartels2002; Evans and Andersen, Reference Evans and Andersen2004; Carsey and Layman, Reference Carsey and Layman2006; Evans and Andersen, Reference Evans and Andersen2006; Bartels, Reference Bartels2008; Evans and Pickup, Reference Evans and Pickup2010; Tilley and Hobolt, Reference Tilley and Hobolt2011; Jerit and Barabas, Reference Jerit and Barabas2012; Grand and Tiemann, Reference Grand and Tiemann2013), which may distort their perception of party policy positions and the gap between perceived and actual party placements.

These misperceptions of where parties fall on the left–right ideological spectrum can, in turn, distort voters’ assessments of their ideological distance from those parties.Footnote 2 Importantly, voter misperceptions about party positions can distort assessments of ideological congruence. When voters inaccurately perceive a party as more ideologically distant from their own stance than objective measures indicate, such misperceptions correspond to greater perceived incongruence. Alternatively, when a voter inaccurately perceives a party as closer to their ideology than expert placements suggest, this misperception might increase their subjective sense of ideological alignment with that party (Merrill et al., Reference Merrill, Grofman and Adams2001; Drummond, Reference Drummond2010).

Here, we explore the relationship between subjective perceptions of representation and attitudes toward the political system. While the objective ideological mismatch between voters and the parties they support may naturally contribute to perceptions of incongruence, we consider whether there is a distinct impact on perceived incongruence separate from the effects of actual incongruence. That is, potentially inaccurate perception of positions may influence satisfaction with democracy by distorting voters’ perceived ideological linkage to parties, even accounting for the actual degree of representation.

In the following analysis, we describe and implement empirical tests to evaluate these questions. The analysis proceeds in two parts. First, we examine the correlation between misperceptions of party positions, actual incongruence, and perceived incongruence. Second, in our main analysis, we investigate whether respondents’ level of satisfaction with democracy decreases with greater perceived incongruence between themselves and the party they support, accounting for actual congruence.

3. Data and measures

3.1 Measuring perceived and actual congruence

While cross-sectional designs are often used to study satisfaction with democracy, this approach may not fully account for the effects of individual characteristics. To address this limitation, we use panel data that allow us to measure changes in key variables for the same individuals over multiple surveys, allowing us to gain better insight into these relationships when holding constant individual-level factors.

Specifically, we use data from the BES data (Schmitt et al., Reference Schmitt, Eijk, Green, Evans, Mellon, Prosser, de Geus and Bailey2021). The UK is useful for studying party representation because of the relative weakness of the party system's representativeness (Brandenburg and Johns, Reference Brandenburg and Johns2014). In particular, in a cross-sectional study of British voters, Brandenburg and Johns (Reference Brandenburg and Johns2014) have found that democratic satisfaction correlates with the lack of perceived proximity to the nearest identified party and not the lack of choices between the major parties. Thus, there is some evidence that UK voters’ attitudes toward democracy are sensitive to how well parties accurately represent their views.

The BES provides periodic surveys of political opinions, perceptions, and preferences, which provides a panel structure appropriate for our study. Because of the variation across regional party systems and contexts in the UK, we restrict the sample used in the analysis to England. Because this study focuses on parties and supporters, only respondents who indicate supporting a party are included. All respondents in these panels were asked to respond to self-reported perceptions of the parties’ left–right positions. Five years of surveys are included in the analysis, from wave 4 in 2015 to wave 18 in 2019. Thirteen waves include the necessary questions about self-reported perceptions of parties' left–right positions. Ten of these waves include the information needed to analyze satisfaction with democracy and these are used in the main analysis below.

Our first aim is to measure perceived and actual incongruence. To measure the actual left–right ideological positions of British parties, we use the mean ideological positions for each party obtained from the Chapel Hill Expert Survey (CHES) for 2014, 2017, and 2019 (Jolly et al., Reference Jolly, Bakker, Hooghe, Marks, Polk, Rovny, Steenbergen and Vachudova2022; Bakker et al. Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2018, Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020). While expert placements are still ultimately subjective judgments of parties’ positions, they are independent of voters’ own judgments and reflect experts’ efforts to place parties for analytical purposes. These CHES positions are then matched with the responses from the BES for the closest year of the survey wave (see Appendix A, Table A.1 for the exact survey structure).Footnote 3

Figure 1 presents the average voter's perceived ideological position of the major parties in England on a scale from 0 to 10, where scale 0 represents the “left” in ideology and scale 10 represents the “right.” The Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democrat parties are denoted by capital letters C, L, and D, respectively. The gray placements correspond to the average perceived positions of voters from the BES data, while the blue placements correspond to the average positions measured by Chapel Hill Survey experts.

Figure 1. CHES expert placements and average BES respondent misperceptions (Note: C = Conservatives, L = Labour, D = Liberal Democrats).

While voters’ perceptions of party positions generally align with expert measurements on average, there is significant variation in how accurately individual citizens perceive party ideology. Figure 2 shows the distribution of the difference between an individual voter's perception and the corresponding actual position for wave 7, as well as continuous lines indicating the fitted normal distributions.

Figure 2. The distributions of misperception (BES wave 7).

3.2 Misperception and incongruence

In this section, we examine the relationship between perceived incongruence, actual incongruence, and misperceptions. We first illustrate these concepts and how inaccuracies in party placements can distort voters’ assessments of representation. We illustrate two scenarios to show how voters can misplace party positions and how this would relates to the actual and perceived political incongruence between themselves and the party they support. First, BES respondents may perceive their own political ideology to be closer to their perceived party placement than to the actual position assessed by CHES experts, as shown in Figure 3b. Conversely, BES respondents may place themselves closer to the actual position than the location they perceive for political parties, as shown in Figure 3a. In this scenario, misperception leads to an underestimation of the degree of representation.

Figure 3. Misperception of party locations: two scenarios, (a) perceived party position farther than actual party position, (b) perceived party-placement is closer than actual party position.

Here, Misperception (${\pi }_{i, t}$) is defined as the absolute distance between an individual respondent's perception of their preferred party's position and the corresponding average position from the CHES expert placements.Footnote 4 Specifically, it is calculated as

(1)$${\pi}_{i, t}^{\,p} = \vert \alpha_{i, t}^{\,p}-\bar{\alpha}_{t}^{\,p}\vert ,\; $$

here, for respondent i in wave t, $\alpha _{i, t}^{p}$ represents their perception of the party's left–right ideological position and $\bar {\alpha }_{t}^{p}$ is the average position of the same party reported by the expert survey. This produces a distance, ${\pi }_{i, t}$, between the respondent and the experts, which indicates the level of misperception of the respondent i regarding the position of the party p on wave t. Specifically, ${\pi }_{i, t}$ measures the misperception that voter i has about the party they voted for in the previous general election.

Actual incongruence (γ i,t) is defined as the absolute difference between the individual respondent's self-placement on general left–right positions and the corresponding average expert placement. This is calculated as

(2)$$\gamma_{i, t}^{\,p} = \vert \alpha_{i, t}^{s}-\bar{\alpha}_{t}^{\,p}\vert ,\; $$

$\alpha _{t}^{s}$ denotes voter i's self-placement in wave t. Perceived incongruence ($\hat {\gamma }_{i, t}$) is measured as the absolute gap between a BES respondent's self-placement and the perceived position of the party they support. $\hat {\gamma }_{i, t}$ is calculated as

(3)$$\hat{\gamma}_{i, t}^{\,p} = \vert \alpha_{i, t}^{s}-\alpha_{t}^{\,p}\vert .$$

Finally, we consider the following panel regression model by including both individual-specific fixed effects and dummies for each wave (vi and mt):

(4)$$\hat{\gamma}_{i, t} = \beta_{1}\pi_{i, t} + \beta_{2}\gamma_{i, t} + v_{i} + m_{t} + e_{it},\; $$

where $\hat {\gamma }_{i, t}$ denotes respondent i's perceived incongruence of their own affiliated party in wave t and γ t,t denotes the actual incongruence between respondent i and their party in wave t. The misperception of respondents about the ideological position of the party they support at time t is represented by π i,t, accounting for the perceived positions of political parties in the context in which they compete (Wagner and Meyer, Reference Wagner and Meyer2023).

The results of the panel analysis exploring the relationship between perceived incongruence and voters’ misperception are presented in Table 1. We first show the bivariate relationships between misperception and both measures of party congruence. In column (1) of the table, we first show the bivariate relationship between voters’ misperception and actual party incongruence, which we establish has a positive association. That is, voters who misperceive their party's ideology tend to have a larger discrepancy between their own preferences and the positions of the party they support. In column (2), we find a positive bivariate correlation between misperception and perceived party incongruence, with individuals who misperceive their party's position perceiving greater incongruence.

Table 1. Party misperception and perceived and actual party incongruence, BES panel

Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses. *p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

The subsequent model (column 3) shows the specification described in 3, examining the relationship between misperception and perceived incongruence when controlling for the level of actual incongruence. Here, we see that both actual incongruence and the degree of misperception each explain some proportion of variation in the perception of incongruence among voters. That is, even when controlling for actual incongruence, greater misperception is associated with perceiving a larger gap between themselves and the parties they support, on average. This suggests that misperception plays a distinct role in shaping voters’ perception of incongruence, separate from the influence of actual incongruence.Footnote 5

We also performed a cross-sectional analysis using a pooled OLS approach, which accounted for demographic characteristics such as age, education level, gender, survey year, party affiliation, and the number of information sources reported by each respondent. The results of this analysis, presented in Table C.6 of Appendix C, are consistent with the panel findings in Table 1.

4. Perceived incongruence, actual incongruence, and satisfaction with democracy

Having shown the correlation between misperceptions and perceived incongruence in the previous analysis, we now turn to our main investigation of how such perceived incongruence relates to satisfaction with democracy, accounting for actual incongruence based on expert surveys. To investigate this relationship, we consider the following panel regression model, which again utilizes individual-specific fixed effects to control for individual heterogeneity

(5)$$\hat{y}_{i, t} = \alpha_{1}\gamma_{i, t} + \alpha_{2}\hat{\gamma}_{i, t} + \epsilon_{i} + w_{t} + u_{it},\; $$

where $\hat {y}_{i, t}$ denotes the semi-standardized measurement of respondent i's democratic satisfaction.Footnote 6 γ t,t denotes the actual incongruence between respondent i and their party in wave t and $\hat {\gamma }_{i, t}$ denotes the perceived incongruence of the respondent i’ of their own affiliated party in wave t. v i captures the respondent-specific fixed effects, and m t captures the time (wave) effect.

Columns (1) and (2) in the upper panel of Table 2 report the estimation results using satisfaction with democracy as the dependent variable. Column (1) considers the case where perceived incongruence is not included as a regressor, while column (2) shows the results when both perceived and actual incongruence are included in the model. In column (1), we see that actual incongruence negatively correlates with satisfaction with democracy.

Table 2. Panel regression: effects of perceived incongruence and actual incongruence on satisfaction, BES panel

Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Once perceived incongruence is also included in the model, the association between voters’ actual incongruence and satisfaction with democracy is no longer statistically significant, while perceived incongruence has a negative and statistically significant association with voters’ satisfaction with democracy. The estimated relationships between perceived and actual party incongruence and satisfaction with democracy are plotted in Figure 4. As shown, a larger perceived incongruence is correlated with a decrease in voters’ satisfaction with democracy, while there is no longer a statistically significant correlation with actual incongruence.

Figure 4. BES: predicted effects of perceived and actual party-supporter incongruence on democratic satisfaction, (a) BES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by perceived incongruence, (b) BES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by actual incongruence.

Although the correlation with actual incongruence is not statistically significant when accounting for perceived incongruence, it is important to emphasize that greater objective distances between voters and parties still contribute to dissatisfaction. However, the results suggest that this effect may occur mainly via the influence on perceived incongruence. Consistent with the notion that subjective perceptions are important for attitudes toward democracy, the overall pattern of results suggests that the effect of perceived incongruence remains when accounting for actual congruence.

To evaluate the robustness of this result, we also conducted several additional analyses, shown in the Appendix. First, in column (3) of Appendix Table C.4 we show a model that adds a control for misperception itself to assess its influence alongside perceived and actual incongruence on satisfaction with democracy. We find no statistically significant effect for misperception when actual and perceived incongruence are accounted for, and the effects of perceived incongruence remain nearly the same as those presented above. While perceived incongruence is associated with greater misperception, the effects of the former are present separately from the degree of misperception.Footnote 7

Second, we also performed an analysis using a pooled OLS approach, which accounted for demographic characteristics such as age, education level, gender, survey year, party affiliation, and the number of information sources reported by each respondent. The results of this analysis, presented in Table C.6 of Appendix C, are consistent with the findings in Table 1.Footnote 8

A third set of additional analyses is intended to partially evaluate the potential endogeneity of perceived incongruence, detailed in Appendix C.4. The first of these uses lagged measures of incongruence and democratic satisfaction, which relates the level of satisfaction to perceived incongruence in the prior survey wave. Similar to our main analyses, the lagged measure of perceived incongruence retains a significant association with lowered democratic satisfaction when including current perceived incongruence and lagged satisfaction with democracy. Second, another analysis examining changes in satisfaction with democracy over time as the dependent variable is detailed in Appendix C.5, which also corroborates the main findings. Third, we also explored an instrumental variable approach, described in Appendix C.6, which is also consistent with the main results. While these supplemental analyses do not eliminate the possibility of endogeneity, they provide some additional evidence suggesting that perceived incongruence may at least partially influence satisfaction with democracy.

A fourth set of supplemental analyses considers a series of alternative measures. First, while expert surveys are useful measures of parties’ “actual” positions independently of respondents, these periodic data limit this measure of congruence to be influenced more by changes in self placements. As an alternative to the expert survey data, we employed an approach that uses average voter placements as a proxy for actual party positions. This method allows for variation in party positions across each survey wave. We conduct a supplementary analysis, detailed in Appendix C.9, where we replace the expert left–right party placements with mean positions derived from BES respondents. To calculate these mean positions, we use both the entire set of BES respondents and a subset of respondents likely to be more politically informed—measured as those with postgraduate degrees or higher. When we use these voter-based measures to measure actual incongruence, the results using these alternative measures remain substantively similar to our main findings, regardless of whether we use the overall respondent average or the more sophisticated subset. The consistency across these measurement approaches provides some evidence that the main findings do not depend on the specific nature of the expert survey data.

Further, we also considered alternatives to left–right ideology measures for respondents and experts and examined an alternative approach to estimate a latent measure of ideological positions based on responses to multiple substantive issue scales using Blackbox scaling (Poole, Reference Poole1998; Poole et al., Reference Poole, Lewis, Rosenthal, Lo and Carroll2016). This facilitates measuring expert and respondent locations based on latent policy preferences rather than interpretations of an abstract left–right scale. For this analysis, we used the BES expert ratings, which include party positions on multiple issues but are limited to certain waves and thus restricted to use in a cross-sectional analysis. We applied this method to BES waves with expert and respondent ratings on four available issues: immigration, redistribution, environment, EU integration. The results using the latent ideological measures mirror the main findings for left–right placements. The details are provided in Appendix C.7. Finally, we also explored the robustness of the aggregate pattern to using each of these policy scales separately, shown in Appendix C.8. The issue-specific results exhibit patterns similar to the main findings using aggregate measure and consistent with the results using the left–right scale.

5. Cross-national analysis of European democracies

As our main panel analysis focuses on a single country context, we also examine whether similar relationships between misperceptions, incongruence, and satisfaction may emerge in a broader set of contexts. To explore this, we use a cross-national sample from the CSES across 14 European countries in Module 5 of the CSES from 2015 to 2021. Examining this broader set of political systems helps assess if perception-driven gaps in ideological representation generally correlate with lower democratic satisfaction when accounting for actual policy incongruence. We utilize CSES data on voters’ perceptions of party positions, self-placements, and satisfaction to estimate cross-sectional models otherwise similar to the main analysis.

We estimate the following specification:

(6)$$\hat{y}_{i} = a_{1}\gamma_{i} + a_{2}\hat{\gamma}_{i} + \theta \tilde{C_{i}} + \eta X_{t} + \phi Y_{i} + \epsilon_{i},\; $$

where $\tilde {C_{i}}$ is a set of demographic characteristics of the respondents, including household income (binned), gender, highest level of education, marriage status, employment status, and household size. We also control for survey years and the country of respondent i by including X t and Y i, respectively. The rest of the notation remains the same as Equation (5).

Table 3 reports the findings. Column (1) illustrates that actual incongruence has a statistically significant negative association with respondents’ satisfaction with democracy in the model that does not include perceived incongruence. However, when perceived incongruence is included in column (2), the correlation between actual incongruence and satisfaction with democracy is no longer statistically significant, while the association between voters’ satisfaction with democracy and perceived incongruence is statistically significant. The fitted values are plotted in Figure 5. The results are consistent with the main findings presented above that voters’ perception of the mismatch between themselves and the party they support is especially important to the relationship with satisfaction with the political system, accounting for actual incongruence.Footnote 9

Table 3. Regression: effects of perceived incongruence and actual incongruence on satisfaction, European democracies (CSES)

Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Figure 5. CSES: predicted effects of perceived and actual party-supporter incongruence on democratic satisfaction, (a) CSES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by perceived incongruence, (b) CSES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by actual incongruence.

6. Conclusions

Effective representation of voter preferences is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy. A crucial element of party representation is the alignment between a political party's policy positions and its supporters’ preferences. If there is a misalignment between the positions parties adopt and the preferences of those who support them, this may contribute to political dissatisfaction. However, the impact of this misalignment may depend not only on actual policy divergence but also on voters’ perceptions of party positions. This study investigates the extent to which voters’ potentially inaccurate perceptions of party positions relate to the relationship between incongruence and democratic dissatisfaction.

To address this question, we differentiate between actual and perceived party incongruence. Perceived incongruence refers to the subjective gap that voters perceive between their own political views and the positions of the parties they support. Actual incongruence, in contrast, captures the gap between voters’ views and objective assessments of party positions, as represented by expert evaluations. Perceived incongruence depends on how accurately voters understand party policy stances, as misperceptions can distort assessments of ideological alignment. Consequently, voters may subjectively perceive a degree of congruence (or incongruence) with their preferred parties that is not reflected in more objective measures.

Our empirical analysis investigates the relationship between perceptions of party positions and democratic satisfaction using a panel regression with data from the BES (Schmitt et al., Reference Schmitt, Eijk, Green, Evans, Mellon, Prosser, de Geus and Bailey2021). We first establish that perceived incongruence is correlated with misperception of the position of the supported party. The main analysis then shows that greater perceived party incongruence is associated with lower satisfaction with democracy among voters, while actual incongruence has no effect when both variables are considered. That is, we find that greater perceived incongruence between a party and its supporters is associated with a lower level of satisfaction with democracy for respondents, separate from the actual degree of party congruence. The findings suggest that subjective perceptions of party incongruence, which are partly a function of misperception, are related to lower satisfaction with democracy. A series of alternative measures and specifications using the panel data and a cross-sectional analysis of European countries corroborates these findings.

Overall, the findings suggest that voters who perceive a greater ideological gap between themselves and the parties they support are associated with less satisfaction with democracy, even when accounting for the actual degree of representation by those parties. Although objective representation influences perception, the results suggest that perception of representation may be a distinct contributor to satisfaction with democracy. This implies that potentially inaccurate perceptions of the degree of representation could play a role in citizens’ attitudes toward democracy.

Our study builds on work on the consequences of party congruence, such as Bakker et al. (Reference Bakker, Jolly and Polk2020), suggesting that subjective perceptions contribute to democratic satisfaction. The results reinforce existing findings that a lack of perceived ideological congruence undermines satisfaction with the party system (Wardt and Otjes, Reference Wardt and Otjes2022) and the democratic system overall (e.g., Brandenburg and Johns, Reference Brandenburg and Johns2014; Stecker and Tausendpfund, Reference Stecker and Tausendpfund2016; Van Egmond et al., Reference Van Egmond, Johns and Brandenburg2020) by highlighting the perceived congruence as an important contributing factor. In particular, our findings extend the work of Brandenburg and Johns (Reference Brandenburg and Johns2014), who demonstrate that reduced democratic satisfaction in the UK is associated with perceived policy distance from parties. The findings also relate to work on US institutions that suggest that perceived ideological proximity to representatives improves attitudes toward legislative institutions (Kirkland and Banda, Reference Kirkland and Banda2019). Further, the results complement those of Ridge (Reference Ridge2022) on the importance of voters’ subjective perceptions for citizens’ satisfaction with the democratic process.

Several limitations are important to note. First, while literature on democratic satisfaction suggests that these attitudes are endogenous to various features of the political context, such as perceived representation, it is also likely that some part of the relationship results from placements being influenced by motivated reasoning, as seen in other contexts (Lenz, Reference Lenz2012; Tiemann, Reference Tiemann2022). That is, voters who become more dissatisfied with the democratic system may be motivated to report a greater ideological distance from the parties they support. While alternative measures and supplementary analyses offer some evidence that perceived incongruence may influence satisfaction with democracy, this study cannot definitively resolve the direction of causality. Addressing the predominant causal direction remains an important area to investigate.

In addition, while not central to this study, the positive correlation found between misperceptions and actual party incongruence is also open to interpretation. This relationship may emerge due to how misperception affects whether more congruent parties are chosen for support, or it may be that larger actual ideological distances may result in distortions in perception by making it more difficult for voters to accurately locate a party's position relative to their own.

Further research using experimental designs could help establish the causal relationships and identify circumstances under which reverse relationships between these variables are likely to be observed. Directly manipulating information about party positions or satisfaction levels in a controlled setting would help illuminate how each factor influences the other. Survey experiments could also measure how misperceptions influence satisfaction with democracy, and whether voters adjust their behavior when presented with accurate information. Such studies could also more precisely test how providing accurate party placement information affects satisfaction levels. Experimental extensions of this type will complement the observational findings presented here.

In addition, while we demonstrate that misperceptions of party positions are related to greater perceived incongruence, we do not directly address the origins of those misperceptions in this study. Misperceptions can reflect various factors (Nasr, Reference Nasr2021), such as information gaps due to political knowledge and sophistication (Bartels, Reference Bartels1996), elite messaging (Jerit and Barabas, Reference Jerit and Barabas2012), and partisan biases (Bartels, Reference Bartels2002). High levels of actual incongruence may, for example, lead to greater misperceptions if, for example, voters seek to minimize cognitive dissonance. While existing research has investigated the reasons for subjective perceptions of party positions and self-placements using survey data, experimental manipulations will also be important to clarifying causal relationships with the political information environment to better understand why the misperceptions emerge that can translate into perceived representation gaps and, potentially, forms of political disaffection. Future work could evaluate more precisely the role that motivational biases and informational gaps play in misperceptions, particularly in light of the potential impact on attitudes toward democracy.

Finally, the present study has important limitations to its scope worth noting. Among these is the focus on supporters of a political party, which does not allow exploring broader sets of groups who may relate to the party system, nor the possible variation across demographic and partisan groups. Additionally, while we include a cross-sectional analysis of Europe, our main panel study is focused on a single country context. Future research will benefit from exploring these issues across additional contexts and populations to better understand the generalizability and conditionality of the findings.

Overall, the findings underscore the importance of subjective perceptions of parties in potentially shaping political attitudes. As voters vary widely in how accurately they perceive party stances, the study highlights the value of understanding how misperceptions affect, and are affected by, attitudes toward democratic institutions.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2024.48.

To obtain replication material for this article, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/DAOOUF

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Susumu Shikano, Lukas Rudolph, Julia Partheymuller, Ozge Kemahlioglu, Frank Thames, Matt Lamb, Tim Nokken, Stefan Müller, Adam Peresman, Joseph Lacey, Lucas Prado, and Fang-Yu Chen for very helpful comments on previous versions. We also thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers who suggested many improvements to the manuscript.

Funding statement

Yen-Chieh Liao acknowledges funding from NexSys – Next Generation Energy Systems, a Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) Strategic Partnership Programme (Grant number: 21/SPP/3756).

Footnotes

1 For an overview of this literature, see Singh and Mayne (Reference Singh and Mayne2023).

2 Misperception is therefore one reason why voters would support parties with policies diverging from their own preferences in objective terms (Hooghe and Stiers, Reference Hooghe and Stiers2016; Boonen et al., Reference Boonen, Pedersen and Hooghe2017; Lesschaeve, Reference Lesschaeve2017; Voogd and Dassonneville, Reference Voogd and Dassonneville2020; Dassonneville et al., Reference Dassonneville, Dejaeghere and Hooghe2020; Steiner and Hillen, Reference Steiner and Hillen2021). In addition, a larger objective ideological distance between a voter and the party they support may also make it more difficult for that voter to accurately perceive party positions (Bartels, Reference Bartels2002; Evans and Andersen, Reference Evans and Andersen2004).

3 Note that the CHES data limits the temporal variation in party positions across time in the panel analysis. An alternative notion of “actual” positions that aligns with the variance in the individual voter perception data can be constructed based on averages from voter perceptions. As described below, we replicate the main analysis using average voter placements and specifically more sophisticated voter placements in Appendix C.9. This approach produces substantively similar results to those reported below.

4 Preferred party is coded based on the party identification variable in each wave of BES surveys, which asks, “Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat or what?” to determine voters’ party identification.

5 While not the focus of the present study, we also illustrate some of the correlates of party position misperceptions in Appendix D. We find that misperceptions are reduced by factors such as education, political interest, media use, and partisan attachment.

6 Satisfaction with Democracy is normalized as follows. The respondents were asked: “On the whole, how satisfied, or dissatisfied are you with how democracy works in the UK?” The interviewee responds on a four-point scale ranging from “Very dissatisfied” to “Very satisfied.” We normalize so that the response “Very dissatisfied” is valued at –1.5 and “Very satisfied” is valued at 1.5. Then we divide the distribution by its standard deviation. In this way, the mean response across the population can be interpreted as standard deviations away from a neutral effect.

7 In addition, each of the substantive findings in the supplementary analyses of satisfaction with democracy presented in the appendix and described below also remain similar when controlling for misperception.

8 We further investigate in this Appendix an alternate approach using ordered logit regression with individual respondent random effects, where the dependent variable is the ordered categorical level of satisfaction with democracy. The results are consistent with the main results in the linear fixed-effects model.

9 We also used the CSES cross-sectional sample from Europe to conduct an analysis similar to the earlier study regarding the correlation between party misperception and perceived and actual voter–party incongruence. The results, which are consistent with the main results from the panel data, are reported in Appendix C.3.

References

Adams, J, Clark, M, Ezrow, L and Glasgow, G (2004) Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?. British Journal of Political Science 34, 589610.10.1017/S0007123404000201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, J, Ezrow, L and Wlezien, C (2016) The company you keep: how voters infer party positions on European integration from governing coalition arrangements. American Journal of Political Science 60, 811823.10.1111/ajps.12231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahler, DJ and Sood, G (2018) The parties in our heads: misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics 80, 964981.10.1086/697253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, CJ and Guillory, CA (1997) Political institutions and satisfaction with democracy: a cross-national analysis of consensus and majoritarian systems. American Political Science Review 91, 6681.10.2307/2952259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, C and Franklin, MN (2012) Introduction: issue congruence and political responsiveness. West European Politics 35, 12171225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, C, Sapir, EV and de Vries, C (2012) Parties’ positions on European integration: issue congruence, ideology or context?. West European Politics 35, 13411362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R, Jolly, S and Polk, J (2018) Multidimensional incongruence and vote switching in Europe. Public Choice 176, 267296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, R, Jolly, S and Polk, J (2020) Multidimensional incongruence, political disaffection, and support for anti-establishment parties. Journal of European Public Policy 27, 292309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banducci, S, Giebler, H and Kritzinger, S (2015) Knowing more from less: how the information environment increases knowledge of party positions. British Journal of Political Science 47, 571588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, LM (1996) Uninformed votes: information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 40, 194.10.2307/2111700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, LM (2002) Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior 24, 117150.10.1023/A:1021226224601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, LM (2008) Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Best, RE (2023) Are leftist or rightist voters better substantively represented? The effects of variance in district magnitude on party-voter ideological congruence. Electoral Studies 82, 102584.10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, RE and Seyis, D (2021) How do voters perceive ideological congruence? The effects of winning and losing under different electoral rules. Electoral Studies 69, 102201.10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blais, A, Morin-Chassé, A and Singh, SP (2017) Election outcomes, legislative representation, and satisfaction with democracy. Party Politics 23, 8595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonen, J, Pedersen, EF and Hooghe, M (2017) The effect of political sophistication and party identification on voter–party congruence. A comparative analysis of 30 countries. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 27, 311329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenburg, H and Johns, R (2014) The declining representativeness of the British party system, and why it matters. Political Studies 62, 704725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busch, KB (2016) Estimating parties’ left-right positions: determinants of voters’ perceptions’ proximity to party ideology. Electoral Studies 41, 159178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, DM and Dynes, AM (2016) How politicians discount the opinions of constituents with whom they disagree. American Journal of Political Science 60, 975989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, E, Chang, K and Hellwig, T (2014) Beyond assimilation and contrast: information effects, ideological magnification, and the vote. Electoral Studies 36, 94106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R and Kubo, H (2017) Explaining citizen perceptions of party ideological positions: the mediating role of political contexts. Electoral Studies 51, 1423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R and Kubo, H (2018) Polarization and ideological congruence between parties and supporters in Europe. Public Choice 176, 247265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R and Meireles, F (2024) Multi-level legislative representation in an inchoate party system: mass-elite ideological congruence in Brazil. Party Politics 30, 151165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carsey, TM and Layman, GC (2006) Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science 50, 464477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christmann, P and Torcal, M (2018) The effects of government system fractionalization on satisfaction with democracy. Political Science Research and Methods 6, 593611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, R (2021) Issue congruence between voters and parties: examining the democratic party mandate in Ireland. Irish Political Studies 36, 581605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, R, Toshkov, D, Bos, B and Krouwel, A (2020) Congruence between voters and parties: the role of partylevel issue salience. European Journal of Political Research 60, 92113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curini, L, Jou, W and Memoli, V (2012) Satisfaction with democracy and the winner/loser debate: the role of policy preferences and past experience. British Journal of Political Science 42, 241261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, S (2013) Does context matter—the impact of electoral systems, political parties and individual characteristics on voters’ perceptions of party positions. Electoral Studies 32, 670683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, S and Holmberg, S (2014) Democracy and bureaucracy: how their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics 37, 515537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlberg, S, Linde, J and Holmberg, S (2015) Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output. Political Studies 63, 1837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, RJ (2018) Political Realignment: Economics, Culture, and Electoral Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dassonneville, R and McAllister, I (2020) The party choice set and satisfaction with democracy. West European Politics 43, 4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dassonneville, R, Dejaeghere, Y and Hooghe, M (2020) Spatial and valence models of voting: the effects of the political context. Electoral Studies 66, 102184.Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, MX and Keeter, S (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Downs, A (1957) An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65, 135150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drummond, AJ (2010) Assimilation, contrast and voter projections of parties in left–right space: does the electoral system matter?. Party Politics 17, 711743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G and Andersen, R (2004) The political conditioning of economic perceptions. The Journal of Politics 66, 194207.Google Scholar
Evans, G and Andersen, R (2006) The political colour of economic perceptions: partisan templates and the macro-economy. Representation 42, 101112.Google Scholar
Evans, G and Pickup, M (2010) Reversing the causal arrow: the political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000–2004 U.S. presidential election cycle. The Journal of Politics 72, 12361251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, L and Xezonakis, G (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies 44, 11521178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, L, De Vries, C, Steenbergen, M and Edwards, E (2011) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?. Party Politics 17, 275301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferland, B (2021) Policy congruence and its impact on satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies 69, 102204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, AC, van Elsas, EJ and de Vreese, CH (2020) Mismatch? Comparing elite and citizen polarisation on EU issues across four countries. Journal of European Public Policy 27, 310328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golder, M and Stramski, J (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54, 90106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, P and Tiemann, G (2013) Projection effects and specification bias in spatial models of European parliament elections. European Union Politics 14, 497521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, SB (2012) Citizen satisfaction with democracy in the European union. Journal of Common Market Studies 50, 88105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, SB, Hoerner, JM and Rodon, T (2021) Having a say or getting your way? Political choice and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research 60, 854873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, M and Stiers, D (2016) Do reluctant voters vote less accurately? The effect of compulsory voting on party–voter congruence in Australia and Belgium. Australian Journal of Political Science 51, 7594.Google Scholar
Ibenskas, R and Polk, J (2022) Congruence and party responsiveness in Western Europe in the 21st century. West European Politics 45, 201222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerit, J and Barabas, J (2012) Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. Journal of Politics 74, 672684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolly, S, Bakker, R, Hooghe, L, Marks, G, Polk, J, Rovny, J, Steenbergen, M and Vachudova, MA (2022) Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2019. Electoral studies 75, 102420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, M (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 19, 4972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirkland, JH and Banda, KK (2019) Perceived ideological distance and trust in Congress. Social Science Quarterly 100, 18101827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiter, D and Clark, M (2015) Valence and satisfaction with democracy: a cross–national analysis of nine Western European democracies. European Journal of Political Research 54, 543562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenz, GS (2012) Follow the Leader. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesschaeve, C (2017) Inequality in party–voter opinion congruence: a matter of choices made or choices given?. Representation 53, 153166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, MS and Malhotra, N (2016) (Mis)perceptions of partisan polarization in the American public. Public Opinion Quarterly 80, 378391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louwerse, TP and Andeweg, RB (2020) Measuring representation: policy congruence. In Cotta M. and Russo F. (eds), Research Handbook on Political Representation, Research Handbooks in Political Science, chapter 13, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loveless, M and Binelli, C (2020) Economic expectations and satisfaction with democracy: evidence from Italy. Government and Opposition 55, 413429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, RC (1990) Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior 12, 331361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchal, N and Watson, DS (2022a) The paradox of poor representation: how voter–party incongruence curbs affective polarisation. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 24, 668685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchal, N and Watson, DS (2022b) The paradox of poor representation : how voter—party incongruence curbs affective polarisation. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 24, 668685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, M and Raunio, T (2006) Cautious voters-supportive parties: opinion congruence between voters and parties on the EU dimension. European Union Politics 7, 427449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, M and Raunio, T (2012) Drifting further apart: national parties and their electorates on the EU dimension. West European Politics 35, 589606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayne, Q and Hakhverdian, A (2017) Ideological congruence and citizen satisfaction: evidence from 25 advanced democracies. Comparative Political Studies 50, 822849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, I, Sheppard, J and Bean, C (2015) Valence and spatial explanations for voting in the 2013 Australian election. Australian Journal of Political Science 50, 330346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvoy, C (2012) Unqaul representation in the EU: a multi-level analysis of voter—party congruence in EP elections. Representation 48, 8399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meirick, PC (2013) Motivated misperception? Party, education, partisan news, and belief in “death panels”. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 90, 3957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, S, Grofman, B and Adams, J (2001) Assimilation and contrast effects in voter projections of party locations: evidence from Norway, France, and the USA. European Journal of Political Research 40, 199221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, TM and Wagner, M (2020) Perceptions of parties’ left-right positions: the impact of salience strategies. Party Politics 26, 664674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasr, M (2020) Voter perceptions of parties’ left–right positions: the role of party strategies. Electoral Studies 68, 102239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nasr, M (2021) The motivated electorate: voter uncertainty, motivated reasoning, and ideological congruence to parties. Electoral Studies 72, 102344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemčok, M (2020) The effect of parties on voters’ satisfaction with democracy. Politics and Governance 8, 5970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noordzij, K, De Koster, W and Van Der Waal, J (2021) The micro–macro interactive approach to political trust: quality of representation and substantive representation across Europe. European Journal of Political Research 60, 954974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palfrey, TR and Poole, KT (1987) The relationship between information, ideology, and voting behavior. American Journal of Political Science 31, 511530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polk, J, Rovny, J, Bakker, R, Edwards, E, Hooghe, L, Jolly, S, Koedam, J, Kostelka, F, Marks, G, Schumacher, G, Steenbergen, M and Vachudova, MA (2017) Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill expert survey data. Research & Politics 4, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, KT (1998) Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science 42, 954993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, KT, Lewis, JB, Rosenthal, H, Lo, J and Carroll, R (2016) Recovering a basic space from issue scales in R. Journal of Statistical Software 69, 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, GB (2010) Party polarization and the ideological congruence of governments. In Dalton RJ and Anderson CJ (eds), Citizens, Context, and Choice: How Context Shapes Citizens’ Electoral Choices. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G and Bingham, J (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Reher, S (2015) Explaining cross-national variation in the relationship between priority congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research 54, 160181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, HM (2022) Just like the others: party differences, perception, and satisfaction with democracy. Party politics 28, 419430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohrschneider, R (2005) Institutional quality and perceptions of representation in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies 38, 850874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, H, Eijk, Cvd, Green, J, Evans, G, Mellon, J, Prosser, C, de Geus, R, Bailey, J (2021) 2014–2023 Waves 1–19 questionnaire, British election study, University of Manchester and University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Schumacher, G, De Vries, CE and Vis, B (2013) Why do parties change position? Party organization and environmental incentives. Journal of Politics 75, 464477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, SP and Mayne, Q (2023) Satisfaction with democracy: a review of a major public opinion indicator. Public Opinion Quarterly 87, 187218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S, Karakoç, E and Blais, A (2012) Differentiating winners: how elections affect satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies 31, 201211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, S and Wlezien, C (2010) Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stecker, C and Tausendpfund, M (2016) Multidimensional government-citizen congruence and satisfaction with democracy. European Journal of Political Research 55, 492511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, ND and Hillen, S (2021) Vote choices of left-authoritarians: misperceived congruence and issue salience. Electoral Studies 70, 102280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiers, D (2022) Spatial and valence models of voting: the effects of the political context. Electoral Studies 80, 102549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stokes, D (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57, 368377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiemann, G (2022) Projection Effects: Coping with Assimilation and Contrast. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Tilley, J and Hobolt, S (2011) Is the government to blame? An experimental test of how partisanship shapes perceptions of performance and responsibility. The Journal of Politics 73, 316330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valgarðsson, VO and Devine, D (2022) What satisfaction with democracy? A global analysis of “satisfaction with democracy” measures. Political Research Quarterly 75, 576590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Egmond, M, Johns, R and Brandenburg, H (2020) When long-distance relationships don't work out: representational distance and satisfaction with democracy in Europe. Electoral Studies 66, 102182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voogd, R and Dassonneville, R (2020) Are the supporters of populist parties loyal voters? Dissatisfaction and stable voting for populist parties. Government and Opposition 55, 349370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M and Meyer, TM (2023) How do voters form perceptions of party positions? British Journal of Political Science 53, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardt, MVDW and Otjes, S (2022) Mind the gap: how party–voter incongruence fuels the entry and support of new parties. European Journal of Political Research 61, 194213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, A (2019) Representation in Western Europe: connecting party-voter congruence and party goals. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 22, 122142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. CHES expert placements and average BES respondent misperceptions (Note: C = Conservatives, L = Labour, D = Liberal Democrats).

Figure 1

Figure 2. The distributions of misperception (BES wave 7).

Figure 2

Figure 3. Misperception of party locations: two scenarios, (a) perceived party position farther than actual party position, (b) perceived party-placement is closer than actual party position.

Figure 3

Table 1. Party misperception and perceived and actual party incongruence, BES panel

Figure 4

Table 2. Panel regression: effects of perceived incongruence and actual incongruence on satisfaction, BES panel

Figure 5

Figure 4. BES: predicted effects of perceived and actual party-supporter incongruence on democratic satisfaction, (a) BES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by perceived incongruence, (b) BES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by actual incongruence.

Figure 6

Table 3. Regression: effects of perceived incongruence and actual incongruence on satisfaction, European democracies (CSES)

Figure 7

Figure 5. CSES: predicted effects of perceived and actual party-supporter incongruence on democratic satisfaction, (a) CSES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by perceived incongruence, (b) CSES: predicted values of democratic satisfaction by actual incongruence.

Supplementary material: File

Carroll et al. supplementary material

Carroll et al. supplementary material
Download Carroll et al. supplementary material(File)
File 318.1 KB
Supplementary material: Link

Carroll et al. Dataset

Link